Veraison to Harvest Statewide Vineyard Crop Development Update #5 September 30, 2011 Edited by Tim Martinson and Chris Gerling Around New York... Statewide (Tim Martinson).

There is sunshine as I write this – a rare commodity, following sporadic showers through most of the week. Several of our sentinel blocks have been harvested (, some Chardonnay, , Sauvignon blanc, and Vignoles). It’s turning into a ‘moderate acid/low brix’ year. The numbers (pp. 5-7) moved little on some varieties (Merlot, , Chardonnay, Lemberger) while others saw gains of +0.4 °brix and acids dropping by 0.5 g/l. Acids on Riesling dropped to around 9 g/l, while average sugars lag 2° brix behind last year. Notable this year is huge gaps in yeast assimilable nitrogen, with some cultivars (chardonnay, merlot, , pinot noir) in the Riesling on ‘Scott Henry’ near Seneca Lake on Tuesday, 27 Sep- 150-250 range, while others – such as 7 of 10 Riesling blocks tember. Good fruit exposure and air movement has been a major are in the low double digits. Soluble solids do not appear to be element in limiting botrytis spread this growing season. Photo by Tim Martinson a problem with Concords (Our 2 blocks showing >17 °brix; see Blanc. All growers are sorting whites to some degree either in the also Terry’s Concord curve, p. 2) – as the juice grape harvest field or on a sorting line. We estimate 20% or so of our Chardon- swings into high gear. Sunshine and cooler weather (forecast for nay was lost to cluster rots which, given the conditions, is really next week) should slow down further botrytis development and not that bad. Cluster weights are above average as are crop levels. (for those who can let the fruit hang) provide gains in maturity Despite all these hardships, there is one very big optimistic foot- and flavor development for later varieties. note to this season – flavors are very good. In sampling fruit as we picked in the research vineyard, everything was really tasty Long Island (Alice Wise and Libby Tarleton). – Chardonnay, Gewürztraminer, Sauvignon Blanc, Tocai Friulano, Viognier, Semillon all had strong, clear characteristic flavors. It September weather continues to be a challenge for east coast was a revelation and another indication of the resilience of both growers. Rain, fog and clouds have dominated the weather vines and vineyard managers. There is light at the end of the tun- pattern all month. It seems that Tropical Storm Irene on Aug. nel. 28 was the turning point. Up until then, weather was warm and sunny with typical rainfall patterns. Vineyards were in good Lake Erie (Jodi Creasap Gee). shape, fruit was relatively clean. The storm whipped around vines and in some cases, such as the research vineyard, more exposed While Constellation harvested ‘green’ Concords a couple of blocks were beat up more than others. The end result for us and weeks ago, Grower’s Cooperative has been harvesting Concords others with more exposed blocks has been downy mildew that for about a week – with no sugar standards for the first week thrives despite our best efforts to beat it back. More protected and decreased standards (14.3 Brix) this week. National Grape blocks have a little downy at the top of the canopy but overall the Cooperative opened Concord harvest on Thursday, September 22, canopies seem to be holding up a lot better. And while the impact 2011 in Westfield and Monday, September 26 in North East, PA. was not immediate, undoubtedly the cluster rots that are apparent Finishing up Niagaras this week, Cott/Cliffstar reported that they now got their start when skins were compromised by 12 hours of will likely open for Concords on October 6. high winds and rain. For many growers, the Niagara harvest is wrapping up and This past week was an eventful week of harvest on Long Island. appears to have been a good one, with reports of larger-than- Many growers elected to bring in Chardonnay and Sauvignon average crops at higher-than-average Brix. Several growers have

Continued on page 8 Page 1 Lake Erie Concord Ripening Profile Terry Bates Cornell Lake Erie Research and Extension Laboratory

Concord juice soluble solids in our nine trial sites across the Lake Erie grape production region ranged from 15.7 to 18.8 oBrix this week with ac- cumulation rates continuing to taper to 0.10 to 0.13 oBrix/day. One of the goals/challenges of this study is to determine the actual ripening potential of the different zones in the region.

The 2011 juice soluble solids data indicate that Route 20 Bench vineyards ripen faster (with re- spect to sugar) than the other zones. Juice soluble solids (oBrix); however, is a concentration mea- surement dependant on both the amount of sugar in the fruit and the amount of water in the fruit. Carbon assimilation and partitioning (i.e. making sugar and putting it in the fruit) is dependent upon factors such as sunlight (and sunlight intercep- tion), temperature, and crop load. Berry weight is dependent upon factors such as vine water status, root function, and soil water status.

In our nine site study, Lake Zone vineyards tend to have larger berry weight because of the heavier soil type than the well drained gravel soils on Route 20. Calculating the amount of soluble solids per berry shows much less separation in actual sugar accu- mulation between the sites. This makes sense in 2011 because all the trial sites have similar pho- tosynthesis potential (sunlight and canopy func- tion).

Route 20 vineyards still may have a slight edge in sugar potential, especially in the two weeks follow- ing veraison, probably because of slightly higher temperatures and earlier fruit development com- pared to vineyards closer to the lake or at higher elevations. We will be taking a closer look at other fruit attributes from lab analysis and environmen- tal factors from weather stations to gain a more comprehensive picture of Concord juice quality at each site.

Page 2 Research Focus: Vignoles, Shoot thinning, and Fruit Rots Tim Martinson, Wayne Wilcox, and Justine Vanden Heuvel This is the first of a two-part series on canopy management and Vignoles. Yield and fruit chemistry impacts will appear in Part 2. - TEM

It’s no secret that in addition to making exceptional still and late-harvest wines, Vignoles is prone to botrytis fruit rot. Clusters are tight and berry skins are thin. Noble rot Berry splitting on September 9 in Vignoles block, setting the stage ‘Botyrized’ flavors are often part of this cultivar’s flavor pro- for increases in Botrytis and sour rot. file. However, it’s not only possible to get too much of a Photos by Bill Wilsey good thing, but this Vignoles is also highly susceptible to 1. Botrytis severity at harvest (9/19): development sour rot (caused by an array of fungi and bac- teria), which can impart negative flavors. We’ve been col- lecting data on canopy management and training system’s impact on yield, fruit chemistry, and rot development over the past two years in a Finger Lakes vineyard.

We took advantage of two adjacent blocks, one on a midwire cor- don with vertical shoot positioning (VSP) and one on a top wire cor- • don (TWC or HW). In the VSP, shoot thinning and rachis removal reduced Within these blocks, botrytis severity (blue bars). we thinned shoots ear- • In the TWC, shoot thinning and rachis removal had no ly (6- to 10-in shoot growth) to a target of 5 shoots/foot of effect on botrytis severity (red bars) canopy in some plots, and did not shoot-thin in other plots • (estimated shoot density was about 8 shoots/foot of canopy). In the VSP, largest reduction in Botrytis severity (43% Note that we removed all the ‘double shoots’ arising from relative to untreated vines) was in the Shoot Thin + secondary buds. Rachis Removal treatment (left bar).

We also noted that in this machine-harvested vineyard, persistent rachises from 2010 were present, some with mummified berries still at- tached (see photo above). Because both the woody rachises and mummified berries can be important sources of the Botrytis fungus, this provided an opportunity to establish plots where we either left the 2010 rachises on the vines or removed them, to see whether this sanitation practice would impact botrytis de- velopment.

So in this challenging season, did training sys- tem (VSP vs TWC), shoot thinning (Thinned or no) or rachis removal (Y or N) affect Botrytis and sour rot development? How much? Wayne Fig 1. Vignoles on VSP (top). Same Fig 2. Vignoles on TWC (top). Same Wilcox rated disease severity on two dates be- vine with leaves removed (bottom) vine with leaves removed (bottom) fore the vineyard was harvested last week. to illustrate cluster zone. to illustrate cluster zone. Photos by Bill Wilsey Photos by Bill Wilsey

Page 3 2. Sour Rot severity: Sour rot, distinguishable from heavy Botrytis over the last 10 days before harvest in all botrytis, was also prevalent this year. Unlike botrytis, sour treatments (from about 5% to 35% for the three canopy rot produces volatile acidity (vinegar), which can negatively manipulation treatments), and twice this final level impact wine quality. (70%) on vines with no shoot thinning AND inoculum from last years’ rachises present in the canopy. Bottom Line: Reducing shoot density to 5 shoots per linear foot of canopy reduced disease severity by almost half in the VSP, and removing last year’s rachises also contributed – presumably by removing a ready source of inoculum in the cluster zone. Shoot thinning did not help as much in the high wire TWC training system, but removing old rachises seemed to have • Training system affected sour rot severity more than had a modest effect. changing shoot density through shoot thinning. The most likely explanation for the differences observed in • Across all four treatments, sour rot severity was 11% in VSP and TWC is – plain and simple – how well exposed the VSP, and 22.2% for the HW. the clusters were to promote air movement. Exposed clusters dry faster, because air moves more freely, evaporating • The effect of training system and canopy manipulation the moisture, and heat from sunlight also promotes rapid were additive: best treatment = Shoot Thin + Rachis evaporation of water. Faster drying and lower humidity Removal/VSP (7.8%), worst treatment = ‘None’/HW equals less botrytis. (29.1%) The VSP canopy was moderately ‘open’, but TWC –along 3, Combined (Botrytis + Sour Rot) severity: with Vignoles’ large leaves – resulted in shaded fruit. Shoot

thinning didn’t open up the canopy enough to significantly reduce shading compared to un-thinned vines (See Figure 1 and 2). It’s important to note that fruit rots were greatly exacerbated by berry splitting after the heavy rainfalls in early September (Photo, p3). Split berries, of course, provide an ideal pathway for invasion of rot organisms.

Effects of training system and canopy manipulation were In hindsight, it appears that the best thing to have done with additive: Vignoles this year would have been to totally strip leaves out of the fruiting zone – the challenge from near constant • With no canopy manipulation (‘None’), effect of going high humidity in the canopy from late August through mid- from HW to VSP was moderate--20% reduction in September was too overwhelming for both the grower’s average % rot. fungicide program (3 applications: Pristine postbloom, • Within VSP, thinning shoots and removing rachises followed by veraison and two weeks post-veraison – Vangard reduced rot by 40% relative to the check and Elevate) and the leaf removal practices applied during the growing season. • Going from HW to VSP and thinning shoots + removing rachises reduced rot by 52% relative to the HW check Acknowledgements 4. Change in Botrytis severity from 9/9 to 9/19: Thanks to cooperator Jim Bedient, for allowing us to work

in his vineyards. This study was supported by the New York Farm Viability Institute. Part 2: Effect of shoot-thinning and rachis removal on Vignoles yield and fruit chemistry will appear in a future Veraison to Harvest.

The VSP block was rated twice – 10 days apart, to track the development of Botrytis over this final preharvest period. • Note the major jump in percentage of clusters with

Page 4 Fruit Maturation Report - 9/30/2011 Samples reported here were collected on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday (Long Island) September 26-28. Please note: Previous sample averages reflect only samples from the limited set we sampled last week. Where appropriate, sample data from 2010, averaged over all sites is included. Tables from 2010 are archived at http://grapesandwine.cals.cornell.edu/cals/grapesandwine/veraison-to- harvest/2010.cfm . We are again reporting berry weight, brix, titratable acidity and pH, and yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN), as part of a joint project with Anna Katharine Mansfield and Lailiang Cheng. Graduate student Mark Nisbit is running the YAN assays as part of his Ph D project, and other students from the Enology lab are running samples. - TEM Cabernet Franc Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Seneca 1.30 20.6 3.14 7.6 21 Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Cayuga 1.59 19.8 3.28 6.1 52 Hudson Valley 9/26/2011 Hudson Valley Lab 1.45 17.0 3.62 6.3 177 Lake Erie 9/27/2011 Portland 2.02 17.7 3.10 10.2 150 Average 9/27/2011 1.59 18.8 3.29 7.5 100 Prev Sample 9/20/2011 1.52 18.1 3.27 7.7 113 ’10 Average 9/27/2010 1.49 21.8 3.6 6.6 79 Catawba

Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Cayuga 2.45 17.8 2.89 11.3 54 Prev Sample 9/13/2011 W Cayuga 2.36 15.0 2.77 13.6 57 ’10 Sample 9/27/2010 W Cayuga 2.31 16.9 3.39 8.0 253 Cayuga White Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Finger Lakes 9/20/2011 W Keuka HARVEST Finger Lakes 9/20/2011 W Cayuga HARVEST Final Sample 9/20/2011 2.55 16.5 3.12 8.3 168 ’10 Sample 8/30/10 Final sample 2.91 15.4 3.3 12.1 201 Chardonnay Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Seneca 1.39 21.2 3.23 6.8 49 Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Cayuga HARVEST Hudson Valley 9/26/2011 Hudson Valley Lab 1.54 17.2 3.65 7.3 368 Hudson Valley 9/27/2011 Hudson Valley 1.68 19.3 3.47 6.7 319 Long Island 9/28/2011 North Fork South 1.94 18.4 3.46 8.6 206 Average 9/27/2011 1.64 19.0 3.45 7.3 236 Prev Sample 9/20/2011 1.52 18.9 3.36 7.9 234 ‘10 Average 9/13/2010 Final sample 1.42 21.6 3.59 6.8 246 Chenin blanc

Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Long Island 9/28/2011 North Fork North 2.20 15.2 3.20 10.0 93 Prev Sample 9/20/2011 North Fork North 1.92 15.0 3.17 11.1 138 Concord Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Keuka 2.82 16.5 3.25 9.1 191 Lake Erie 9/27/2011 Portland 3.44 17.4 3.34 8.8 254 Average 9/27/2011 3.13 17.0 3.30 9.0 222 Prev Sample 9/20/2011 3.40 16.6 3.24 9.7 212 ’10 Sample 9/27/2010 3.22 17.1 3.61 6.6 157 Page 5 Lemberger Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 E Keuka 1.39 22.0 3.13 6.7 17 Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Seneca 1.64 20.2 3.29 5.9 124 Average 9/27/2011 1.52 21.1 3.21 6.3 71 Prev. Sample 9/20/2011 1.55 20.9 3.24 6.1 116 ’10 Sample 9/27/2010 2.30 21,8 3.,35 7.6 70 Malbec

Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Long Island NO SAMPLE Prev Sample 9/20/2011 North Fork South 2.18 17.9 3.50 9.3 282 Merlot Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Hudson Valley 9/26/2011 Hudson Valley Lab 1.56 16.1 3.70 7.0 235 Long Island 9/28/2011 North Fork South 2.05 17.8 3.61 7.1 139 Average 9/27/2011 1.81 17.0 3.66 7.1 187 Prev Sample 9/20/2011 1.64 16.8 3.58 7.1 189 ’10 Sample 9/27/2010 1.41 21.2 3.93 4.8 123 Niagara Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Lake Erie HARVEST Final Sample 9/20/2011 Portland 4.40 16.0 3.21 7.9 172 Noiret Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Hudson Valley 9/26/2011 Hudson Valley Lab 1.66 17.3 3.46 7.6 320 Hudson Valley 9/26/2011 W Hudson Valley 1.63 17.6 3.24 9.9 128 Lake Erie 9/27/2011 Ripley 1.79 18.9 3.11 7.4 156 Average 9/27/2011 1.69 17.9 3.27 8.3 201 Prev Sample 9/20/2011 1.64 17.5 3.21 8.9 202 ’10 Average 9/27/2010 1.79 19.5 3.50 7.2 121 Pinot Noir Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 E Seneca HARVEST Hudson Valley 9/26/2011 HV Lab 2.03 17.7 3.64 8.1 277 Hudson Valley 9/27/2011 HV 1.42 19.7 3.72 7.1 345 Average 9/27/2011 1.72 18.7 3.68 7.6 311 Prev Sample 9/20/2011 1.48 19.2 3.50 6.9 243 ‘10 Average 9/20/2010 Final Sample 1.44 23.6 3.95 7.0 266

Page 6 Riesling Ber. Wt. Region Harvest Date Description % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) g. Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 E Seneca 1.33 17.2 2.95 9.5 28 Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 E Seneca 1.57 18.6 2.98 8.8 52 Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Seneca - LR/ST 1.26 19.1 3.00 9.0 19 Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Seneca - NLR/NST 1.14 19.4 2.95 9.4 35 Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 E Seneca-shoot thin 1.51 19.5 3.00 9.1 22 Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 E Seneca - no thin 1.39 17.0 2.96 9.2 17 Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Cayuga 1.48 18.1 3.03 8.8 122 Hudson Valley 9/26/2011 Hudson Valley Lab 1.52 14.6 3.33 9.6 180 Lake Erie 9/27/2011 Fredonia 1.98 16.3 3.04 10.2 236 Long Island 9/28/2011 North Fork North 1.74 15.5 3.22 8.8 67 Average 9/27/2011 1.55 17.8 3.19 8.9 132 Prev Sample 9/20/2011 1.46 17.2 3.03 9.6 107 ‘10 Average 9/27/2010 1.54 19.1 3.31 8.5 84 Sauvignon Blanc

Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Long Island HARVEST Final Sample 9/20/2011 North Fork North 1.64 18.7 3.44 7.1 170 ’10 Sample 9/08/2010 Final Sample 1.84 19.8 3.64 8.0 242 Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Finger Lakes 9/13/2011 W Cayuga HARVEST Hudson Valley 9/26/2011 Hudson Valley Lab 1.94 19.3 3.39 6.9 131 Hudson Valley 9/13/2011 W HV HARVEST Average Prev Sample 9/20/2011 (only 1 block) 1.76 18.4 3.29 7.2 136 ’10 Average 8/30/2010 Final Sample 1.64 18.3 3.46 9.3 170 Traminette Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Keuka 1.35 18.7 2.95 7.8 62 Finger Lakes 9/27/2011 W Seneca HARVEST Hudson Valley 9/26/2011 Hudson Valley Lab 1.81 19.3 3.31 7.9 147 Hudson Valley 9/27/2011 W Hudson Valley 1.76 20.1 3.15 8.1 62 Lake Erie 9/27/2011 Fredonia 2.15 22.0 2.94 8.7 90 Average 9/27/2011 1.77 20.0 3.09 8.1 90 Prev Sample 9/20/2011 1.82 19.0 3.04 9.5 88 ’10 Average ` 9/27/2010 1.74 21.8 3.28 8.5 99 Vignoles Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm) Finger Lakes 9/20/2011 W Keuka-VSP, Shoot thin HARVEST Finger Lakes 9/20/2011 W keuka-VSP, No Thin HARVEST Finger Lakes 9/20/2011 W keuka-high wire ST HARVEST Finger Lakes 9/20/2011 W keuka-high wire NST HARVEST Final Sample 9/20/2011 1.42 22.4 3.09 11.7 149 ‘10 Average 9/20/2010 1.65 23.2 2.19 13.3 231

Page 7 Continued from page 1 Finger Lakes (Hans Walter-Peterson) reported double-digit tons/acre this year and are pleased with the success of the season at this point. One grower told me that Harvest has kicked into high gear in the Finger Lakes now. A harvest has been “stupendous, as far as tonnage goes, with good number of growers and wineries are making harvest decisions this color, good Brix. It’s been a good year so far.” week based more on disease development than fruit chemistry or flavors. There is a pretty broad range of fruit infections, from National Grape reported in their most recent newsletter that their fairly heavy levels of bunch rots in some spots, to others that are samples averaged 14.4 Brix for the first three days of processing, very clean and show minimal levels of infection. There is a lot of with higher sugars likely as samples come in ranging from 15.4 sorting of fruit going on at crush pads as well. In most cases, the to 16.5 Brix. Late harvest Niagaras started going to Pleasant rots are purely from Botrytis and are not accompanied by sour rot Valley on Sept 21, and they averaged 13.6 Brix. - one thing to be thankful for. Some late downy mildew infections Hudson Valley (Steven McKay & Steve Hoying). are showing up on younger leaves at the tops of canopies – not an unusual sight this time of year, especially given the weather condi- Wet conditions continue to be the major issue for 2011 grape production in the Hudson Valley this year. The soil has not dried tions over the past few weeks. out, and rain is in the forecast through the weekend. Grapes start to accumulate sugar with short dry periods, but then rain comes Some new varieties starting to get pulled out of vineyards this and dilutes the rising brix levels. Next week has drier conditions in week have included Traminette, Lemberger, and some of the first the forecast. The excessive moisture has led to lower brix readings Riesling loads of 2011. Fruit chemistry results suggest that berries than usual and flavor development not being as great as in recent are still holding a lot of water in them, as brix and acid numbers years. seem to be a bit “diluted”. With warmer and drier weather forecast A number of growers describe the harvest of whites as being a for the next several days, some growers may decide to wait to har- salvage practice, looking to avoid further losses with rots. Flavor vest for a little bit to see if some of that water comes back out of and brix levels are described as being “okay” Chardonnay will be the fruit. Others will probably jump at the chance to get fruit off picked in five days in Dutchess County, while Ulster is harvesting of the vines while the sun shines. Concord crops are still looking Chardonnay and Riesling at this time. Traminette and good for most growers, with yields above normal for the most part, are in line to be harvested this weekend. thanks at least to some extent to how juicy the fruit is right now. At the Highland Lab, Pinot Noir, Pinot Gris, La Crescent, and Harvest bins look like giant bowls of Concord soup. Sauvignon Blanc have been harvested. Millbrook Vineyards reports that to this point the reds seem to be holding up and developing well.

This newsletter was made possible with support from the and Grape Foundation, the J. M. Kaplan Fund, and USDA Federal Formula funding through the Cornell and New York State Agricultural Experiment Stations.

Veraison to Harvest is a joint publication of: Cornell Enology Extension Program Statewide Viticulture Extension Program Long Island Grape Program - Suffolk CCE Finger Lakes Grape Program Lake Erie Regional Grape Program Hudson Valley Regional Fruit Program Copyright 2011 © Cornell University

The information, including any advice or recommendations, con-tained herein is based upon the research and experience of Cornell Cooperative Extension personnel. While this information constitutes the best judgement/opinion of such personnel at the time issued, neither Cornell Cooperative Extension nor any representative thereof makes any representation or warrantee, express or implied, of any particular result or application of such information, or re- garding any product. Users of any product are encouraged to read and follow product-labeling instructions and check with the manu-facturer or supplier for updated information. Nothing contained in this information should be interpreted as an endorsement expressed or implied of any particular product. Page 8